A Quantifiable, Objective Standard Of Beauty

A Daily Mail article (usually I’d say take the Mail with a flat of salt, but they did helpfully include sources so you could dig up the original study if you were so inclined) presents new research that female beauty has the same effect on male brains as cocaine.

The study, conducted by Harvard University researchers, found the face of an attractive woman triggers the same reward centres in a man’s brain as [cocaine].

Test subjects were shown images of attractive females, and brain imaging scans revealed that reward circuitry fired off when they looked at comely faces.

A prominent curved forehead, eyes, nose and mouth located relatively low, large eyes, round cheeks and a small chin were among the features men found most attractive.

A reader writes in response to the article :

So, seeing this young lady’s face and body causes a cocaine-like effect on male viewers.

We could show a large sample of men a large sample of images, and determine quantitatively how intense the response was.  This would allow us to prove that beauty is not a social construct but is hardwired, and even to show which females have the goods, objectively.

We could even show that fat females cause no brain squirt of coke-like nice-nice.

There is a lot of science to be done here that will make a lot of pretty lies wither.

Veeery interesting. Yes, the results of such a study would, I’ve no doubt, drive another nail into the ideological coffin of the “cultural conditioning” crowd. You want to gleefully watch covens of feminists cry to the hells below and lash out in spittle-flecked fury? Show them studies that beauty is objective and measurable, and that men pretty much share an attraction for the same slender, beautiful women.

A study that showed the same SPECIFIC reward regions of the brain LIGHTING UP on MRI scans of, say, one hundred brains of men hailing from various globe points when they looked at photos of beautiful women, and then DEACTIVATING when the men were shown pics of ugly or fat girls, would be the sort of inarguable hard science that should, in a rational, sane world, utterly discredit the beliefs of those who say beauty is a subjective, cultural construct. Brain scans would, humorously and in one fell swoop, put the lie not only to platitudinal feminist gum-flapping insisting there are no standards of measurable beauty, but to the feeble entreaties of all those cloying betaboys who suck up to flabby fembots by telling them what they want to hear.

“ew, i don’t want an anorexic. i like a girl with curves, like you dear”

brain scan image formulating… *beep boop beep*… “anorexic” girl pic asplodes brain

“no no, that’s not me, dear. that’s just my culturally conditioned brain talking.”

😆

There are lies, and there are cosmic overlies. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and “beauty is subjective” are those cosmic overlies that fuel the core reactor which energizes so many lesser lies. Destroying them would cause dominoes of lies to fall in their fiery wake.

ps a little question i like to pose to people who don’t believe universal beauty standards exist is the following: how could photoshop professionals, who spend their days retouching photographs of women to make them more attractive, know which parts of the face to alter if beauty did not have an objective, measurable basis? think about it.

pps i told you i would give you three evolutionary psychology related studies this week sure to fibrillate the hearts of feminists and their apologists, and i came through. now go, my disciples, and spread the game word.

Read Full Post »

Study Proves The Validity Of Game

A reader (a Ph.D. scientist, for those of you who yearn to believe only d-bags read about and practice game) writes:

…it is a delight to understand what motivates women and how to make sense of various factors and my previous dating life.   Your continuing incisive reporting has helped my understanding tremendously.

He attached a link to a study confirming YET ANOTHER essential game concept — that men’s attractiveness to women, at least in the early rounds of meeting, is based as much on, and perhaps more on (if you expand the criteria list to include all modifiable male attractiveness traits), their attitude and sociosexual-related personality dimensions (i.e., their game) as on their looks. Taking the usual caveats about speed dating studies into consideration (which the authors discuss), you really should read the entire paper, because there is so much in there that confirms just about every Chateau maxim in the whole.

men’s sociosexuality was attractive to women and showed incremental validity over and above men’s physical attractiveness (see Table 3)…

Interestingly, there is evidence that all these [male attractiveness attributes] can be accurately judged in short periods of time…

However, only sociosexuality added incremental predictive power over and above physical attributes in the current study. Unexpected was that sociosexuality emerged as a relative powerful predictor of men’s popularity to women, particularly because women largely expressed a long-term mating interest. A possible explanation is that male sociosexuality indicates a history of successful mating experience or mating skills that are attractive to women.

Sociosexuality is basically a psychological term that, in this context, defines the personality and temperamental characteristics of a man who has game, and encompasses such time-tested game concepts as preselection, confidence, assertiveness, cockiness and, well, pretty much everything listed in the 16 Commandments of Poon at the top of this blog.

Game is notoriously difficult to measure scientifically in the field, so sociosexuality serves as a comparable substitute for measuring the traits that are common in men who are good with women. Think of sociosexuality as more of an indrect indicator of overall game proficiency, rather than as a measurement of familiarity with specific game tactics.

The takeaway lesson of this study is a powerful one: women, sluts and saints alike, are really attracted to men with high sociosexuality, otherwise known as game/charisma/chemistry.

This is about as close to scientific proof of the effectiveness of overarching game proficiency to mating success as I’ve yet seen in the literature. To be sure, there are plenty of studies confirming the efficacy of specific and narrowly-defined game tactics, but not many that have found a positive correlation between men who embody game as a personality trait and their success with women. This is why I think the study’s authors were a bit surprised by their results pointing to sociosexuality as a major player in male attractiveness.

What other stone cold but soft on the inside Heartiste truths are buttressed by this study?

– Older men have higher sexual market value, while older women have lower SMV. This is reflected in their choosiness. Older men are like aged single malt scotch; they command a higher price. Older women are like milk; they hit their expiration fast and no one wants them:

As Figure 1 shows, men’s choosiness increased and women’s choosiness decreased with increasing age. […] The higher choosiness of women that is ubiquitous in studies of young adults decreased and even tended to reverse for older women.

– The 463 bullet point checklist that women carry in their heads when they meet a man is true and relevant:

[…] females based their choices on more criteria than men did…

– Women had best be hot or they aren’t getting much attention from men with choices:

[F]or women only facial attractiveness [increased the frequency of matches]…

– The higher your sexual market value, the choosier you are (and this goes for men as well as women, although, surprisingly, it seems to be more true for men at the very right tail of the SMV curve, possibly because very high mate value males are rarer than very high mate value females):

As expected, many of the attributes that made individuals attractive were negatively related to the frequency of choices (see Table 3), and thus positively related to choosiness (Hypothesis 2a).

– Being a niceguy is a tingle killer (or, at best, a non-tingle generator), as is having nerdy or beta traits like shyness and conscientiousness. (In contrast, shyness in women is not a bad thing for them.):

The expected negative effect of shyness was also confirmed but reached significance only for men. As expected by Hypothesis 1a, agreeableness had no effect on being chosen by either sex.

– Women are the choosier sex, but men exercise choice as well:

On average, male participants were chosen by 3.6 females (32% of their 11.2 dating partners), female participants were chosen by 4.1 males (37% of their dating partners).

– Men are more interested in short term mating opportunities than are women:

Confirming hypothesis H4b, the sex by interest interaction was due to the fact that men reported more short-term interest than women… and this effect was due to a higher variance of short-term interest in men than in women.

– The icy hell of LJBF banishment is real, beta orbiting and sycophancy will not get you sex, pushing for sex sooner rather than later is a better pickup strategy, and acting like a beta provider who wants a relationship will have no effect on women’s interest in you for either sex or LTRs:

As Table 4 indicates, Hypothesis 4d was fully confirmed. Women had a preference for having sex with men who pursued more a short-term mating tactics but did not tend to develop a romantic relationship with them, whereas the long-term interest of men did not influence women’s mating or relating.

– Game, and other attraction triggers, work on all kinds of women, even women who are very dissimilar to you:

Together, these findings suggest that similarity effects are weak in studies of brief real dating interactions.

– Men really do prefer to invest more in women who aren’t slutty:

Conversely, men had a preference for relating with women who pursued more a long-term mating tactics but did not tend to have sex with them…

Ignoramuses (paging Amanda Marcotte) who think evolutionary psychology doesn’t tell us anything useful about male-female mating and relationship dynamics will blow an aortic valve if they stumble across this post.

Our analyses were based on numerous evolutionarily informed hypotheses. Most of these hypotheses were confirmed and were consistent with earlier dating studies, lending further support to evolutionary accounts of human dating, mating and relating.

I can just hear the wailing and see the rending of garments of all the anti-game haters and feminists reading this study. May your suffering burden you this holiday season with the cursed tidings of a full-blown mental breakdown!

Read Full Post »

Women Are Less Principled Than Men

Do women have an underdeveloped sense of justice? Is the adherence to principles primarily the domain of men?

Anecdotal evidence would suggest both the above propositions are true. Certainly, Chateau field marshals have previously turned their awesome powers of observation to the task of illuminating the wide gulf between the sexes in how they understand and apply the notion of fairness. For instance, in this Chateau post from long ago it was noted that women’s sense of justice flows from a refined but wholly self-interested pragmatism.

Women as a whole are more coldly calculating than men, and the worst of them can challenge the top 1% of sociopathic alpha males for deceitfulness and cavalier betrayal. It is the prerogative of women that practical concerns, and how to achieve them, dominate their thinking and catalyze their emotions. They are the ones stuck with nine month pregnancies. Morality was codified by men; amorality perfected by women. And no one is more versed in justifying and rationalizing their own shitty behavior than a woman.

And in this Chateau post, it was boldy stated that women’s morality is geared toward the welfare of the social collective regardless of first principles, and that the beliefs of the most popular in status and numbers often become the beliefs of women who, as is the whim of their historically vulnerable sex, fear exclusion from the group more than anything else, except carrying the seed of a beta male.

[W]omen by nature are followers, and where the pack goes, so go they. Women self-govern by a simple (simplistic) motto: “It’s all in the numbers.” Once a tipping popularity point is reached, women will abandon their old principles for the new principles with a speed that will prove the shallowness and expediency with which they hold their beliefs.

But to date, little science has been done to examine the evidence for the Chateau and common man wisdom that men and women hold different moral values. Until recently.

The scientific literature is accumulating that points to fundamental sex differences in morality.

• Some studies show that women are more empathetic then men, and that this difference increases over child development (for example, there’s a nice study showing this trend in Spain by María Mestre and collaborators).

This is evidence that group cohesion informs women’s morality more than it does men’s morality. If someone is distressed in the group, it will be more empathetic women who tend to that person’s gripes. This is a good thing when the group is the nuclear family; you want a wife and mother who will defend your family, right or wrong. It’s a bad thing when the group — such as the society in which women live — is exploited by bad people who can convincingly project a victim mentality and, thus, hijack women’s empathy compulsions.

• When looking at pictures of immoral acts, women’s judgments of severity correlate with higher levels of activation in emotion centers of the brain, suggesting concern for victims, whereas men show higher activation in areas that might involve the deployment of principles(Carla Harenski and collaborators).

Women are less principled than men. A woman’s sense of fairness and moral disgust can be manipulated by emotional pleas. This is why you often see women defending hardcore killers when they are bombarded with sob stories about those killers’ sad upbringings. The upside is that women’s gravitation to the travails of victims can insulate true victims from egregious applications of principled but misguided retribution.

• When men watch wrongdoers getting punished, there is activation in reward centers of their brains, whereas women’s brains show activation in pain centers, suggesting that they feel empathy for suffering even when it is deserved (Tania Singer and collaborators).

Again, more evidence that women’s morality rests on feelings rather than on abstract devotion to principles. This is why you will often see women (and this includes nuns) sympathizing with death row scum of the earth. Their empathy modules have trouble distinguishing between real victims (the dead at the hands of killers) and sentimental victims (the condemned about to die).

• Women are more likely to factor personal cost into decisions about whether to punish an unfair stranger, which suggests that women are more context-sensitive, and men adhere to principles (Catherine Eckel and Philip Grossman).

Women are unprincipled pragmatists. They must be, because, evolutionarily speaking, they have been the more vulnerable, weaker sex. As evolutionary psychology would predict, women simply can’t afford high-minded adherence to principles the way men can.

• Women were twice as generous in a game that involved dividing $10 with a stranger (Eckel and Grossman, again).

Female generosity with strangers is likely an evolved trait that furthers group cohesion, or prevents the outbreak of intra-, or inter-, group violence. Male selfishness with random strangers likely evolved because men’s mating value rests to a greater degree on their acquisition of resources. (So if women complain about men being selfish, well, they should remember who it is exactly that motivates men to horde their winnings.)

• Numerous studies have found that women are more likely than men to reciprocate acts of kindness (reviewed by Rachel Croson and Uri Gneezy).

Another example of female predilection to see to the collective good in order to strengthen group cohesion.

• Women tend to be more egalitarian then men, and men are more likely to be either completely selfless or selfish (James Andreoni and Lise Vesterlund).

I should hope it’s pretty well known by now that women have been voting for more liberal policies and candidates than men since suffrage. In other words, women will discard principles when voting in favor of the expedience of spreading around harmonious tranquility with other people’s money.

• Women are more likely than men to think it is okay to imprison a person on trumped up charges in order to stop violent rioting in the streets (Fiery Cushman and Liane Young). But women are also less likely to endorse diverting a runaway trolley down an alternate track where it will kill one person instead of five (John Mikhail).

AKA: Where the desire for group cohesion bumps up against overcharged empathy.

• Women are more likely than men to blame a shipwreck survivor for pushing another survivor off a small plank of driftwood in order to survive (Stephen Stich and Wesley Buckwalter).

“Someone, somewhere, is hurting.”

• Women are less likely than men to be politically conservative (Karen Kaufman; Terri Givens), though the reverse pattern was true in the 1950s (Felicia Pratto).

I’m guessing the pattern was the reverse in the 1950s because more women were married and getting their provisions from provider husbands instead of grievance shakedown rackets and sugar daddy government. A married woman with children is a woman whose worst moral instincts are muted. Alternate explanation: political conservatism was of a lot different complexion in the 1950s than it is now.

This range of findings resists an easy summary, but, on the whole, women seem to be more empathetic and more focused on the collective good. This is broadly consistent with Gilligan’s suggestion that women are more likely than men to base moral decisions on a care orientation, whereas men gravitate more towards principles.

Once again, the science confirms horribly evil and politically incorrect Chateau observations. I don’t post these studies because I like to have my balls gently caressed by reams of scientific papers proving the rightness of my worldview. Though that is a nice side effect, my primary purpose in highlighting these scientific explorations is the warm glow I get thinking about the eyeball-popping rage that reading these posts must bring to my haters. Their pain fills me with good cheer!

What the scientific conclusions mischievously suggest is that female care-oriented morality is best suited for small-scale communities like families and neighborhoods, but is not so good when expanded to a national scale (see: mass immigration). Male principle-oriented morality, in contrast, is a much better guard rail for steering a nation along the right path (see: fiscal restraint).

Read Full Post »

Feminists Are Afraid Of Evolutionary Psychology, And With Good Reason

Amanda Marcotte, no raving beauty she (the objective rating of her looks is germane to this discussion insofar as it partly explains the motivation for why feminists hold the irrational opinions they do), has a beef with sociobiology, aka evolutionary psychology.

I read and research a lot of “evolutionary psychology”, and while they are very good at getting people to cop to anti-feminist opinions and sexist behaviors, I have not really seen many—any?—that prove their contention that these behaviors or opinions are encoded in the genes instead of learned from the environment. They simply note people are sexist and claim that it’s genetic. I sense an agenda there, because if you were putting science in front of an agenda, you would acknowledge the huge body of research supporting the idea that we learn our behaviors and beliefs from our environment.

But I’m happy [ed: no, she’s not] to read studies that prove that sexism is genetic and unchangeable instead of socialized and changeable!  I just haven’t seen it in all the years I’ve been writing about this.

Feminists are scared shitless of the implications of sociobiological theory, and it’s easy to see why. The whole edifice of feminism teeters on the shaky proposition that sex differences feminists find unpalatable are amenable to change (i.e., “improvement”) via government and societal intervention. If it is found that sex differences are instead hard-wired into the brain architecture through the process of millions of years of natural and sexual selection and are resistant to social reengineering schemes, then feminism as a practical ideology is utterly discredited.

What’s a man-jawed, fuzz-faced, beady-eyed fembot to do when her raison d’être is rendered null and void? One thing we know for certain: she won’t be happy to read studies dropping a hot, steaming deuce into her brain case.

There is a level of psychological distress more disconcerting, more bowel-evacuating, than even that of coming to realize one is hitched to a hollow ideology. Ultimately, feminists are afraid of what evolutionary psychology has to reveal because feminists are afraid of attractiveness standards, and of unchangeable attractiveness standards in particular. Because, you see, in the arena of sexual marketability, it is men who are the sex with more options to improve their dating market value. Women are, for the most part, stuck with their desirability, or lack thereof, the moment they are conceived. Outside of expensive, radical cosmetic surgery the effectiveness of which is questionable at best and monstrous at worst, the average woman will not be able to make herself more beautiful and, hence, more likely to snag a high value man anytime in her life. She can only lower her mate value by, for example, getting fat, old, burdened with bastard spawn or facially disfigured.

Accepting this truth is so depressing for many women that elaborate delusions, rationalizations and nonsensical ideologies occupy large swaths of their neural pathways to misdirect and medicate their overstuffed egos.

As the gleaming Chateau on the hill once pointed out, accurate generalizations about immutable human characteristics are the holy water to feminists’ undead orthodoxy:

if you’ll notice, women are the most outraged by the idea of evolutionary psychology and unchangeable genetic fate. that physical beauty should be so unalterable and at the same time so critical to a woman’s prospects for snagging an alpha male of her own sends shivers down her spine. if true, it means they cannot do much to improve their value on the open market. no educational attainment, no carreer success, no makeup, no exercise [to a point], no hob nobbing with the right people — nothing much matters but for the face they were given when mommy’s egg was fertilized by daddy’s swimmers.

yet, this is precisely how the sexual market works. and so, as the gears of the pretty lie machine clank and sputter to dispense more of its life-affirming self-delusions, the “social conditioning” brigade strikes out at the descending shroud of hopeless darkness.

Read Marcotte’s words. Listen to her distress signals. “Learned behaviors”. “Social conditioning”. “Cultural conditioning”. These empty slogans — so pleasant on the ears of blank slatists and equalists and temperamental bolsheviks — are the lifeblood of feminist thought. To undermine the slogans is to ling chi the souls of their adherents. Marcotte frantically and blindly swings them around like a verbal sword, not to persuade or enlighten, but to keep her encircling enemies at bay. This is argument in service to self-preservation, nothing more, for the evidence she marshals in support of her worldview is slowly rotting from the inside out. As science inexorably chips away at the justifications for believing in these feminist fairy tales, the cognitive dissonance that believers must feel rattles their confidence and sends them reeling backwards into paroxysms of strawmen, illogic, sour grapes, non sequiturs and ad hominem. The stuck pig always lashes out most violently when cornered.

Feminists will answer, with all the self-contradiction that only they can expertly dispense absent the slightest hint of irony, that sociobiology is not a hard science because we can’t go back in time to observe our ancient ancestors’ mating habits, thus relegating any theory of human mating behavior to the province of “just-so stories”. Such penetrating insight!

Well, no shit. We can’t go back in time to observe apes evolving into humans, either, so according to feminist logic that must mean the theory of evolution is wrong. Scientists gather evidence for historical biological processes by analyzing what is available to them in the present environment, and then draw inferences from the data. Additional data and experimental testing will either buttress or weaken a particular hypothesis. This isn’t just-so fantasizing; it’s the scientific method.

Sadly for Marcotte and her ilk, to date the accumulated data is buttressing a genetic view of human nature and weakening fifty years of environmental supremacy belief.

The question of evolutionary psychology’s status as a hard science is not something of much relevance. All that matters is whether or not its findings make sense. And compared to competing humanities and “soft science” fields, evolutionary psychology makes a lot of sense. It, and not “cultural conditioning” theories, best explains the patterns of human behavior anyone can see in action every day if they aren’t up to their eyeballs in denial, or striving for social status points over their SWPL frenemies.

Marcotte is insisting on cultural explanations for which there is much less evidence than there is for genetic explanations. If feminists present a theory of human behavior which explains the available evidence better than evolutionary psychology, I’ll give it its due. Of course they will not do so because they and their cohorts have nothing but lies. For example, the highly popular “stereotype threat” theory held near and dear by racial egalitarians — close cousins of feminism — has recently been proven a sham.

Even evidence that supports a cultural primacy interpretation is fraught with danger to feminist orthodoxy. For what is culture but a manifestation of genetic propensity?

Culture does not spring up out of the ground unseeded, like a summoned monolith. Human genetic disposition seeds the ground and creates culture, unleashing a macro feedback loop where culture and genes interact in perpetuity. Those “cultural judgments” you so recoil from are actually subconscious reinforcements of ancient biological truths.

If feminists find some smidgen of peer-bypassed evidence tucked away somewhere in a private school’s gender studies program that, for instance, Playboy has pushed men to value young, slender babes over the old, fat chicks men would otherwise prefer, then they will have to account for the unnerving fact that the culture *just happened* to influence men to favor slender babes over fat chicks, and not the opposite. Then they will find that most cultures across the globe mysteriously influence men to favor young, thin women over old fatties. The muddled and tormented bridging of all those coincidences into some kind of semi-coherent thought will belie their theories and rob them of any parsimony. Why does culture, if it is the primary influencing force of sexual behavior as feminists claim, almost always act in one direction on fundamental human dynamics such as mate choice? That is a question feminists dare not entertain.

So feminism, along with Communism, multiculturalism and egalitarianism, falls victim to the same tropes that all human nature denialists share: namely, the belief that people behave in upsetting ways because some nebulous cultural mind ray tells them to behave in upsetting ways.

The “blame the media” refrain is the reflexive blurt of the human nature denialists. It comes in many flavors: blame society, blame cultural conditioning, blame stereotyping, blame heteronormativity, blame subtextual bias… anything to avoid confronting the reality of evolved immutable human preferences for some traits over others. People are intolerant of obesity because it innately disgusts them, not because “the media” tells them to be disgusted. Media propaganda can make it more or less acceptable to publicly express that disgust, but it can’t create the disgust out of thin air.

One should not underestimate how convenient the feminist beliefs in gender equalism, social conditioning, and the malleability of human behavior is to the realization of their goals. Because without those beliefs, feminists won’t be able to get on with the program of altering the oscillation of the evil sexist cultural mind rays. Their worst fear will instead emerge to soak up the light of day: human nature is less alterable than they wish were so, and essential contours of our sexual preferences are heavily influenced by a universally shared genetic legacy. Where the genetic predilection for certain mate characteristics is not universally shared, it is racially or ethnically shared, and thus, just as immutable.

Contrary to the hopes and dreams of rainbow ejaculating egalitarian gasbags, what the science of evolutionary psychology and genetics tells us is that there are born winners and there are born losers, on the individual and on the population level, and you’ll have no choice but to sit back and get used to it. Since most feminists are ugly, accepting this truth would deliver a mortal blow to their egos.

This week, I will present three more of those evolutionary psychology studies that so vex feminists. Hopefully Marcotte will catch wind of them. The thought of her groaning under the weight of the anti-equalitarian evidence as her forehead vein throbs and her soul splinters into a million shards of impotent grrlrage fills me with sadistic joy.

Read Full Post »

Why Alimony Must End

A girl pal was telling me about the uncle of one of her friends. His wife had left him, moved way out of state, and met some new guy who became her live-in boyfriend. Get this: the ex-wife refused to marry the live-in bf because she wanted to keep the alimony spigot open. Years later, she’s still unmarried, still boffing the bf, and still collecting alimony from the ex-hubby beta uncle, who, by all accounts, is a stand-up guy that everyone (except, apparently, his ex-wife) really likes and admires. He doesn’t know where the money goes because the kids are with him most of the time. He thinks most of it funds his ex’s vacations with her lover.

The problem with America’s anti-male marriage and divorce industrial complex is that it allows women’s normally inhibited cuntery — when just and fair, and some might say patriarchal, rules constrain their choices — to effloresce beyond the bounds necessary to maintain a healthy, functioning society. A good rule of thumb: if a woman thinks she can get away with sticking the shiv in a beta to redound to her personal advantage, she will.

There is no feminist in the world who can twist her hamster logic enough to convince anyone worth convincing that legally forcing a man to pay alimony to an ex-wife who refuses to remarry so that the alimony gravy train keeps riding is even remotely within the universe of fairness. A fucking two year old can tell you that this is bullshit on stilts.

Since feminists are so irrational, it’s best to ignore them and focus on persuading people who matter of the rights or wrongs of certain laws and policies. Unfortunately, the number of persuadable people who matter is next to zero in the funhouse amusement theme park formerly known as America.

Assuming for a moment that the elites currently womanning the legal, political, academic and media institutions haven’t gone completely insane or malevolent (a big assumption nowadays), a sensible correction to this blatantly man-hating legal policy (greased by the oily secretions of the world’s number one parasites — divorce lawyers) is a new policy which states in unequivocal terms that any alimony to an ex-wife ends as soon as the tip of another man’s cock pierces her outer labia.

And that’s just a minor concession to fairness. In a truly sensible world which took account of the changed modern mating landscape, there would be no alimony at all. The whole thing’s a fucking sham — like just about everything else that oozes out of courtrooms, boardrooms, ad rooms and legislative committees these days — designed to steal redistribute wealth and prestige from rules-playing beta suckers to bloodsucking grievance groups. You wonder if someday the dutiful and honor-bound betas will wake up to their dispossession, but then you have to remember that impotently bending over and taking it up the poop chute again and again is probably encoded in their DNA, so they really can’t help themselves.

Read Full Post »

The Difference Between A Cheating Alpha And A Cheating Beta

When a beta cheats on a woman, NOTHING HE DOES WILL APPEASE HER.

When an alpha cheats on a woman, ALL IS FORGIVEN.

I’ve observed it many times. And you have, too. The good betaboy who slips up once and has an affair. The girlfriend or wife finds out (because, naturally, handwringing betas can’t live with a guilty conscience) and, if he’s lucky, he’s in the doghouse for months of celibate grindage. If he’s not so lucky, she uses his slip-up as a pretext to dump him so that she can shack up with the dude she’s been cheating with for years. Behold the beta who clumsily meddles with the forces of alpha: you’ve never seen such undignified contortionist remorse so ineffectually sway a woman to leniency.

But an alpha male who cheats, even repeatedly? If he’s really on top of his game, his jilted girlfriend will cry her eyes out in an orgy of self-blame wondering why she doesn’t please him, then bake him a cake. If she’s made of stronger stuff, she might chastise him for ten minutes, weep bitterly for an hour into her pillows, then bang his brains out in a monumental after-fight sesh.

To those whom much is given, little is expected. To those whom much is expected, little is given.

Read Full Post »

The Unpalatable Truth About Giving Women Gifts

On a number of blogs and websites covering the story of Steve Jobs’ death, there was much consternation among the commentariat about a small anecdote from his personal life retold in his new biography. Supposedly, Jobs was on a date with Joan Baez and he refrained from buying her an expensive dress that she swooned over when she saw it in the store window. Instead, he opened his billionaire’s wallet with his alligator arms and bought himself a few shirts.

Alpha.

Naturally, the dweebs that typically infest comments sections took this as evidence that Jobs is an asshole (true) and a beta who doesn’t know how to win a lady’s heart (false). The manginiac whining crescendoed in a giant betaboy wail that real men buy women stuff if they want to impress them. You could call these panty piddlers part of the lost beta generation. They have no clue.

It is much more likely that Jobs’ refusal to buy Baez that dress made him seem *more* alpha, and hence more desirable, to her. Buying women stuff — particularly buying them stuff before you have sexed them numerous times — is a surefire way to fast track yourself into the beta provider zone where women lose all arousal and make you wait three months for sex.

For the slow learners: Women do not get viscerally turned on by men who buy them things. They get avaricious when they think they have a gullible mark in their grasp. Buying women stuff to win their approval is a great way to ensure you date only heartless golddiggers.

Buying shit for women is best done AFTER you have established your alpha male bona fides. At that point, long after a relationship has evolved and she is fully enslaved by her love for you, the largesse you shower upon her won’t cannibalize your alpha allure. When the time comes that she needs small reminders of your beta resource investment to feel secure and safe with you, your gifts will carry more import.

Reader “Jack” passes along a story from his life that illustrates the points made above:

Yesterday was the birthday of one of the women I’m dating. I didn’t send her anything. I didn’t even throw out a “Happy Birthday” email during the day while I was at work. I even waited a few minutes after showing up for her birthday party (late I might add), before finally saying something.

Better still was to find out that she got flowers at work from her bosses. Every person she worked with would walk in and ask “are those from [Jack]?”. Despite all of that, or rather because of all that, I subsequently ended up with the hottest sex yet that I’ve had with her.

A year ago, I’d have either sent her flowers and various other gifts during the day, or would have been apologizing like mad for forgetting.  Granted, I’d have also only had one girlfriend, who wasn’t nearly as hot as the multiple ones I have going now.  I’m definitely glad that Glenn Reynolds or Dr. Helen linked to your site earlier this year, or I’d have never learned all the things I was doing wrong all of these years.  Thank you.

Ugly, ugly truth. But, being true, it’s best not to ignore its lessons.

Read Full Post »